Gender and History最新文献

The case of Mary Masako Akimoto illuminates how carceral systems based on immigrant criminalisation, known as crimmigration, intersected with gendered notions of decent and indecent work in 1930s America. Mary Akimoto was deported from the USA in compliance with US anti-sex trafficking law for the crime of selling sex in a brothel (indecent work). Yet, as part of her rehabilitation or as a requirement of her release in the months and years that followed her initial arrest, she regularly found herself in coerced labour situations engaging in vocations gendered as decent work.

The legal struggle for women's right to self-defence since the feminist mobilisation against violence in the 1970s reveals the startling history of the briefly expanded, and swiftly foreclosed, strategies for battered women's freedom in the late twentieth century. Voluminous legal scholarship focuses on the uses, promises and shortcomings of battered woman syndrome in the courts. But a historical accounting of the development and legal career of battered woman syndrome is essential to contextualising why this defence strategy took such tenacious root in the courtroom after the feminist self-defence cases of the 1970s and what was lost in the lurch toward a psychological theory of women's protective violence.

This article examines the gendered carceral regime at the Federal Industrial Reformatory for Women at Alderson, West Virginia that was created by its first superintendent, Mary Belle Harris and the experiences of three women political prisoners – Grace Holmes Carlson, Helen Bryan and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn – who served time at Alderson between 1944 and 1960. It offers a critical analysis of Carlson's, Bryan's and Flynn's firsthand accounts of their time in prison to reveal these women's strategies for surviving Alderson's reforming mission that included, paradoxically, both a rejection of the middle-class femininity inherent in that mission and, at times, an accommodation to it.

Huang, A. 2024. “Trans-gender things: Objects and the materiality of trans-femininity in Ming-Qing China.” Gender & History 36: 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.12766

In the following three citations, volume has been replaced by page numbers:

Citation 5 has been corrected from ‘Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006), vol. 87, p. 161’ to ‘Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006), pp. 87, 161’.

Citation 6 has been corrected from ‘Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011), vol. xxi–xxiv, pp. 181–5’ to ‘Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011), pp. xxi–xxiv, 181–5’.

Citation 80 has been corrected from ‘Vitiello, The Libertine's Friend, vol. 34, p. 219’ to ‘Vitiello, The Libertine's Friend, pp. 34, 219’.

In citation 101 two incorrect abbreviations have been removed from the titles of:

‘Jessica Hinchy, Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India: The Hijra, c. pp. 1850–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019)’ should have read ‘Jessica Hinchy, Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India: The Hijra, c.1850–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019)’.

‘Jamey Jesperson, ‘Trans Misogyny in the Colonial Archive: Re-Membering Trans Feminine Life and Death in New Spain', pp. 1604–1821, Gender & History 36 (2023)’ should have read ‘Jamey Jesperson, ‘Trans Misogyny in the Colonial Archive: Re-Membering Trans Feminine Life and Death in New Spain, 1604–1821’, Gender & History 36 (2024)’.

We apologize for these errors.

This short article provides a coda to the special forum on ‘Reproductive Rights Beyond Roe’. It merges the history of abortion with what Stéphane Gerson calls ‘personal family history’ to consider how historians should imagine, remember and narrativise histories of abortions within their own families and networks of kin. The article does this by way of exploring the life of Florence P. Evans, the author's great aunt, who died of abortion-related complications in 1935 at the age of twenty-two years.

The figure of the monster has long been used by trans and intersex scholars, artists and activists to articulate their sense of being in a world dominated by binary, cisgender norms. Yet what does it mean to embrace ‘the monstrous’ and how might that embrace inform the construction of transgender history? This article examines the specificities of ‘the monstrous’ in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain and empire by focusing on two figures at the boundary of the human: ‘the mermaid’ and ‘the hermaphrodite’. In doing so, it asks what the histories of these two marginal figures might tell us about the construction of ‘the human’ and argues that an alignment with the monster might enable trans historians to ally themselves with a vision of the future that goes beyond anthropocentrism.